Re: [Libconf-dev] Re: [webmin-l] libconf

[dams]

"Brian J. Murrell" <address@hidden> said:

> [ I hope nobody minds the cross-posting but I think this is getting very
> relevant to both lists ]

I'm very happy to see the webmin guys interested by libconf

>
> On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 22:49, Jamie Cameron wrote:
>> 
>> Since Libconf is just a Perl API, you certainly could use it for 
>> writing webmin modules with no problems.
>
> Indeed, and were I writing modules, I would most likely use it.
>
>> However, from looking at that 
>> page it seems that their parsers cannot yet handle any config format 
>> that webmin cannot also, so there would be no big gain from using it yet.

Which config formats are you talking about? Of course libconf templates don't
cover everything, but the data structures and the templates are generic enough
to fit to a lot of formats. I would be very interested by those formats, to see
if we can make libconf handle them.


[...]

> That is mainly the reason I brought it up here.  I would like to see the
> Webmin project and the Libconf project benefit from each other's work
> and resources.
>
> But rather than having Webmin wait for Libconf to have parsers for all
> of the different (kinds of) config files out there, it would be
> beneficial to both projects to see Webmin embrace Libconf sooner (ASAP
> even) than that and promote writing Libconf parsers for all new modules.
>
> That way people who are developing new Webmin modules and writing
> parsers anyway, benefit both projects at once at no additional cost.  In
> fact it could become a cost savings, even in the near future because if
> a new module writes a generic parser because it's file(s) are a generic
> format, the next module to use that format doesn't have to write a
> parser.

I agree with that, it could benefit both project. But keep in mind that libconf
is not yet 100% functional, I need to write syntax/datatype validation and
systemconf inheritance. I'll do that in the next couple of weeks.


-- 
dams